According to the official narrative, Charleston Hartfield was a victim of the shooting spree at the Route 91 Harvest music concert of 1st October in Las Vegas. He was one of 58 that died – and each death represents a trail of devastation that has ripped through a family that doesn’t deserve, in any way, shape or form, what has happened to them. The last thing that anyone wants to do is intrude and trample on any particular grief by singling out individuals and writing articles about them, but the author finds himself somewhat concerned about the case of Mr Hartfield, who is a figure of public interest not only by dint of being a Las Vegas police officer (killed at what is widely understood to be a much more extensive attack – a false flag – across Las Vegas than the authorities say it is), but also because he was a published author.
At one time in the US military – an Iraq war veteran – Hartfield had been in the Las Vegas force for 11 years. He died while he was off duty and enjoying leisure time. It is indeed ironic that while his jobs had been, by varying degrees, fairly dangerous, and he had thus far survived in them, he was killed while he was enjoying doing what other normal people do. He was one of 58 out of 22,000 – or in other words he was one of the tiny 0.26% of the crowd that got shot and killed – and he was an off duty cop.
In the last weekend of September, he and his wife, Veronica, were making a trip to the three-day country music festival held in the Vegas Village at the foot of the Mandalay Bay hotel. It was something that the couple had done at least once before since the festival’s debut in 2014. Well, this is what we have been told. We do know for sure that he and his wife were at the Route 91 Harvest arena for at least one of the 2017 nights because he posted a photograph to Instagram, and this photo was of the two of them with the stage and the Mandalay Bay in the background. We know this selfie was from the Saturday show because Hartfield had written a caption: “Post Sam Hunt”. Sam Hunt had been the artist that headlined that night. Reinforcing the idea that the concert had finished – i.e. the headliner had brought the night to an end – by the time the photo was taken was the detail in it which showed an empty standing area behind the couple, and detritus left behind by concert-goers on the floor. The reader can see this photo by following this link which leads to an Instagram viewer/mirror site. It appears that Hartfield’s own Instagram page is now unavailable (but the author did see it before it went down).
The following is a fact: the photo of Charleston and Veronica Hartfield at the Route 91 Harvest concert on Instagram was taken at the end of the Saturday night show. There was no attack on the concert on the Saturday night.
So why does the corporate-media produce the following material?
Not long before the bullets came raining down, Las Vegas police officer Charleston Hartfield posted a string of photos on Instagram and Facebook. One showed a banner from the Route 91 Harvest Festival, the country music show he attended every year. Another photo showed a deep-fried Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup, and another showed him with his wife at the festival — their silly selfie faces glowing beneath the neon lights of the Vegas Strip behind them.
Just to be clear, the “silly selfie” being referred to is the one taken on the Saturday night. The piece clearly suggests that it was produced on the Sunday night. In fact, on the same page as this piece is a caption, under a cropped version of the image in question, which reads as follows: “Charleston Hartfield posted this photo to his Instagram account on Sunday.”
Hartfield, 34, was off-duty when the shooting started at the Route 91 Harvest Festival country music concert, but department officials said he died trying to help others escape.
Photos from his Instagram and Facebook feeds show him and his wife, Veronica, pulling funny faces in selfies just hours before chaos broke out.
The above extract is even clearer in its suggestion that the photo was taken during the Sunday show. Well, it is the Daily Mail.
Everything else that the author could find is of the following form, with no specifics given and relying on interpretation. An example:
Hartfield posted an image of the Route 91 country music festival on his Facebook page Sunday evening, hours before a gunman shot into the concert crowd, killing at least 59 people.
Photos from the weekend show him enjoying a deep-fried Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup and taking selfies with his high school sweetheart, their faces lit from the neon lights of the Vegas Strip.
But when the first spray of bullets rained down on the festival from the 32nd floor of Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino Sunday night, Hartfield “immediately took action to save lives,” said Clark County Undersheriff Kevin McMahill
Are these two extracts referring to the image that was taken on the Saturday night? They clearly would like readers to infer that a picture of the couple at the concert was taken on the Sunday night, a few meagre hours before the attack started.
When the author sees stuff like this, then it is like a red rag to a bull. Why is it that sections of the corporate-media are implying that a picture of Hartfeld and his wife from the Saturday night concert was taken shortly before his death? The answer is that those sections of the corporate-media are trying to elicit the strongest possible emotional reaction from its audience. Why does it do that? The answer is that the reportage of the deaths incurred during the incident in Las Vegas is crucial psychological manipulation that is meant to further the agenda that the perpetrators set out to achieve.
At an even more crucial level, what we have is the corporate-media using false evidence to inform us that Hartfield was present at the place and the time that we are told he died. Are we supposed to shrug it off? Are we to ignore it? If such information was offered to detectives in a murder case it would surely arouse suspicion of complicity. The red rag flaps violently.
And so let us notice that Hartfield was a cop who had written a book entitled “Memoirs of a Public Servant”. It was a book, apparently (because the author hasn’t read it) about his experience on the force. Notice the title and how he describes himself; obviously he had a constitutionally correct idea about what it was to be a police officer. Additionally, consider how the very fact that he wrote a book tells us that he was a thoughtful man – perhaps a man who would ask questions in order to fully understand his world? And he happened to be one of the 0.26% who died.
Now consider the following brief account of how Hartfield was killed:
When the first spray of bullets rained down on the festival from the 32nd floor of Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino Sunday night, Hartfield “immediately took action to save lives,” said Clark County Undersheriff Kevin McMahill at a press conference on Tuesday.
Moving fast and with authority, he worked to escort people safely out the packed venue as the barrage of bullets continued to fall around them. He looked around to assess the grounds and to the sky to help other officers locate the shooter before more lives could be taken.
Then, a bullet found its next target: Hartfield. No one would argue he didn’t die in the line of duty.
The extract is the best that the author could find in a brief search of corporate-media. Additionally, this is from the National Law Enforcement Officers memorial fund (link):
Officer Hartfield attempted to assist some of the casualties of the shooting when he was fatally struck by gunfire.
We should notice that the two accounts only agree if Hartfield was escorting wounded people out of the venue. But the author is not buying it either way. Married men, please imagine a situation where you are with your wife, and she is in imminent danger and at risk of being killed. Do you concern yourself with escorting complete strangers, wounded or otherwise, out of the venue and harm’s way? Do you stand around scanning the distant skyline, or the nearby foreground to see where the assailant is coming from so that you can assist police? Or do you focus on getting your wife as far away as possible from jeopardy? If a man takes care of his wife like this, then he is hero enough. But of course, it always suits Government to portray the dead as heroes for the common good, rather than for performing the eminently more important task of protecting one’s own family (to Government, this is still victimhood). In fact it always suits the Government to portray the dead as heroes – even if they are just so many victims – for the common good: i.e. that which Government wants to achieve, which as far as we can see (apart from gun control) is inculcating normalcy bias as a reaction to terror. It must be true, for what benefit is there for Government, using as little detail and as much pomp as possible expressly to obscure the truth, in portraying a victim as a hero? The answer is that people feel better about the victim having been killed.
It remains to be seen if the specifics of Charleston Hartfield’s death will ever be revealed. The author doubts it.